Pennsylvania Republican compares rape to premarital sex

Earlier this week, Pennsylvania Senate hopeful Tom Smith upped the ante in the Republicans’ apparent attempt to alienate as many female voters as possible. In a mind-boggling display of theological honesty, he compared rape to premarital sex. When asked by a reporter what he would think if his daughter or grandaughter became pregnant from a rape, he replied that he had “lived something similar” when his daughter became pregnant from pre-marital sex. He later “clarified” by adding, “”No … I said I went through a situation [with a daughter]. It’s very, very difficult, But do I condone rape? Absolutely not. But do I propose life, yes I do. I’m pro-life, period.”

Like Paul Ryan, and like Todd Akin, and like all the Christian groups who support them, Mr. Smith is being remarkably forthcoming about what extremist Christians really believe, and what they’d like you and I to be forced into acting upon. To these believers, conception and personhood are inextricable, and personhood is only supposed to happen within the confines of holy matrimony between precisely one man and one woman, who will be each other’s one and only sex partner for life. Anything else — anything at all — is an abomination. They really do believe that rape, premarital sex, and homosexuality belong in the same discussion.

There are, of course, other beliefs under the Christian umbrella. We must presume that not every Christian believes a loving relationship between an unwed couple is the same kind of evil as rape. Surely not all of them believe, as does the Republican VP hopeful, that a woman should be forced to bear the child of her rapist. Of course, not all of them think that women cannot get pregnant if they are “legitimately” raped. That is precisely why Christianity — and indeed any religion at all — has no business in politics.

It comes as no surprise that secularists, humanists, atheists, and other non-believers are opposed to Christian legislators leading with a religious agenda. What should surprise us is that more Christians don’t seem to understand the grave threat to their religious freedom inherent in the election of activist religionists of any stripe. As more and more Republican leaders are voicing their true religious feelings, it should be painfully apparent that they are not interested in freedom of religion at all. They are only interested in freely enforcing their religion. They do not care about the rights of Christians who believe in contraception or reproductive choice. They do not care if some Christians interpret the Bible’s stance on promiscuity differently.

These political leaders have taken on the role of pontiffs. They have decided that they have exclusive access to the one true interpretation of the one true religion’s holy text. Under their leadership, there would be no freedom to practice other religions unless they happen to line up with the state religion. As earthly mouthpieces for their god, they are at once interpreters, preachers, and enforcers.

In a secular America, Tom Smith would be free to disapprove of his daughter for having a loving sexual relationship outside of marriage. Paul Ryan could use all his powers of persuasion to convince women to bear the children of their rapists. Todd Akin’s opinions on the female reproductive system would be bizarre, but he’d have every right to live his life as if rape victims don’t get pregnant. In 21st Century America, every voter who disagrees with these strange religious beliefs is in very real danger of having to abide by them. We are just a few short baby steps from creating a theocracy. We can only hope that people of all religions and no religion are smart enough to realize that our experiment with Christianity has failed miserably. Maybe we have lived enough of the nightmare of state enforced religion to remember why the colonists left England in the first place.